lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/13] rcu: Move preemption disabling out of __srcu_read_lock()
On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:32:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:19:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:07:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 09:13:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Currently, __srcu_read_lock() cannot be invoked from restricted
> > > > environments because it contains calls to preempt_disable() and
> > > > preempt_enable(), both of which can invoke lockdep, which is a bad
> > > > idea in some restricted execution modes. This commit therefore moves
> > > > the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() from __srcu_read_lock()
> > > > to srcu_read_lock(). It also inserts the preempt_disable() and
> > > > preempt_enable() around the call to __srcu_read_lock() in do_exit().
> > >
> > > Did you not simply want to use: preempt_disable_notrace() ?
> >
> > I believe that tracing the preempt_disable() in srcu_read_lock() and
> > srcu_read_unlock() is actually a good thing. Or am I missing your
> > point?
>
> Depends a bit on why we needed this change in the first place -- which,
> going by the other branch of this thread, seems lost. However,
> preempt_{dis,en}able_notrace() will not end up in any tracer/lockdep and
> generate the minimum code that preserves the required semantics.

True enough! But can all architectures locate the TIF in all contexts?

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-06 23:21    [W:0.137 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site